On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:36:10PM -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The license also contains many clauses that suggest a belief that the > license controls _use_ of the software, which has no backing in (US, at > least) copyright law. While these clauses do not seem to be non-free, > they do set a bad example.
One of the goals was to create a license which is compatible with french law. (It isn't clear whether the GPL is.) > However, all that is most likely a non-issue, given: > >>5.3.4. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GPL LICENSE > >> > >>In the event that the Modified or unmodified Software includes a code > >>that is subject to the provisions of the GPL License, the Licensee is > >>authorized to redistribute the whole under the GPL License. > >> > >>In the event that the Modified Software includes a code that is subject > >>to the provisions of the GPL License, the Licensee is authorized to > >>redistribute the Modified Software under the GPL License. > > This clause seems to clearly allow usage of the licensed software under > the GPL, which would remove any issues of Freeness with the rest of the > license. IANAL, but I'm not sure of this clause. I find it too vague. 1) "GPL" is never explained. Any license named "GPL" would suit ? Like the Grr Pfff Lol License ? 2) Which version of GPL should be used ? Any ? The current version ? The current version or any later ? This could cause problems when integrating CeCILLed software into GPLed apps. What do you think of this ? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net | | fingerprint: 075D 010B 80C3 AC68 BD4F B328 DA19 6237 023B 3F4F |